Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM
Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM
复制标题
DOI：
10.7717/peerj.8247
复制
发表时间：
2019-12-12
期刊：
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Stubler, Amber D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Silbiger, Nyssa J.;Stubler, Amber D.
背景：同行评审研究对科学进步至关重要。理想情况下，同行评审过程是对研究的科学价值和可信度的公正，公平的评估;然而，在所有同行评审方法中都会出现有据可查的偏见。系统性偏见已被证明是直接影响同行评议的结果，但鲜为人知的是下游的影响，不专业的审稿人的意见，与authentices.Methods共享：在科学，技术，工程和数学（STEM）领域的国际参与者的匿名调查，我们调查的普遍性和作者的看法，长期影响的接收不专业的意见。具体来说，我们评估了作者的科学能力，生产力和职业轨迹的看法后，收到非专业peerreview.Results：我们表明，调查受访者在四个交叉类别的性别和种族/民族收到非专业的同行评议意见平等。然而，传统上在STEM领域代表性不足的群体在接受非专业的同行评审后，最有可能感受到对科学能力、生产力和职业发展的负面影响。讨论：研究表明，对能力的负面看法会导致自信心降低，短期中断成功和生产力，并延迟职业发展。因此，我们的研究结果表明，非专业评论可能已经并将继续使传统上代表性不足的科学群体在STEM领域的差距永久化。
Background: Peer reviewed research is paramount to the advancement of science. Ideally, the peer review process is an unbiased, fair assessment of the scientific merit and credibility of a study; however, well-documented biases arise in all methods of peer review. Systemic biases have been shown to directly impact the outcomes of peer review, yet little is known about the downstream impacts of unprofessional reviewer comments that are shared with authors.Methods: In an anonymous survey of international participants in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, we investigated the pervasiveness and author perceptions of long-term implications of receiving of unprofessional comments. Specifically, we assessed authors' perceptions of scientific aptitude, productivity, and career trajectory after receiving an unprofessional peer review.Results: We show that survey respondents across four intersecting categories of gender and race/ethnicity received unprofessional peer review comments equally. However, traditionally underrepresented groups in STEM fields were most likely to perceive negative impacts on scientific aptitude, productivity, and career advancement after receiving an unprofessional peer review.Discussion: Studies show that a negative perception of aptitude leads to lowered self-confidence, short-term disruptions in success and productivity and delays in career advancement. Therefore, our results indicate that unprofessional reviews likely have and will continue to perpetuate the gap in STEM fields for traditionally underrepresented groups in the sciences.